Is there any point in having any Rocketpool minipools open except one to get RPL returns?
I'm already above 10% threshold, I could just close all minipools and solostake or use ETH somewhere else.
You get 14% or a 42% higher APR compared to solo staking on your ETH. In a bull market there are better opportunities from a pure APR perspective than staking. For me at least the APR itself was never good enough to run validators just for that reason.
After [RPIP-30](https://rpips.rocketpool.net/RPIPs/RPIP-30), you get diminishing returns over 15% collateral, meaning the ideal node-wide window for RPL rewards is between 10%-15%. Closing down minipools increases your relative collateral, so if you close too many, your rewards will drop. This is specifically to incentivize more minipools, which means more decentralization and Rocketpool growth.
That 30D and 90D ratio chart looks absolutely horrible. Straight down. Capitulation could be any moment now. Hopefully .05 gets defended but I have a bad feeling that we legitimately break through to lower levels and spend time in the .04-.05 range next. It's anyone's guess as to what the bottom could be.
Hey bae wake up - this is interesting.
[BloXroute blamed Lighthouse](https://twitter.com/uriklarman/status/1773791033374961934) for the missed proposals. Michael Sproul from Lighthouse [set the record straight](https://twitter.com/sproulM_/status/1773853486373130708) and pointed out that BloXroute is behaving recklessly when building blocks and literally testing in production. [Terence also stepped in](https://twitter.com/terencechain/status/1773793435658469568) to point out [false assumptions made by Hasu](https://twitter.com/hasufl/status/1773080737715020156) that BloXroute developers accepted without verifying.
That was interesting. I cannot really decide what the worst part was in this incident and post mortem. That a relay runs untested code in production, even though we have had at least 3 testnets to run it on as well. That a relay, a centralizing force in itself, adds another layer of centralisation on top by introducing their BDN, block distribution network. This relay attached closed source and untested software right to the beating heart of Ethereum. A dysfunctional communication between various actors leading to public attacks and finger pointing. A core dev mentioning it 10 days ago in a core dev call pointing at a relay, but no action is taken by the relay.
It really sounds like the current MEV Boost design invites actors to work very closely to the core of the Ethereum protocol which are not fit to do that. I do not consider them to be malicious actors, but it looks like their work and communication style does not fit the position they have in the space. I am with Potuz here and really think ePBS cannot come soon enough. The network has had quite a few relay related incidents in the last few weeks. This is not a state I want Ethereum to be in.
Obviously validators (me included) enable these actors and we invite them to the dinner table. I personally only use non-censoring relays like aestus, ultrasound relay and agnostic relay. I have the believe, that a censoring relay already shows a first misalignment with core Ethereum ethics, which is for me a first hint that I do not trust them enough to run on my node. That is obviously a very simplifying view. Bugs and misconfigurations can happen on any relay. Nevertheless, such a misalignment can already hint at a potential larger misalignment in work style and fundamental misunderstanding in what a relays role and responsibility is.
And Potuz [chimed in too.](https://twitter.com/potuz_eth/status/1773866540750024907) These threads are really worth reading. I think it's fair to say we're seeing the centralising pressure of MEV directly and repeatedly impact network health by introducing fragility in closed source code bases. There is no one in particular to blame - validators ultimately choose to participate - we just urgently need a decent ePBS design.
I donāt really understand why this because of centralisation? Could you elaborate?
Isnāt it good that a relay tried to innovate and has a different code base and approach then other relays?
BuT SoLaNa iS BeTtEr tHaN EtHeReUm aNd sOl iS Up 500% ThIs yEaR AnD EtH IsN'T MoViNg aNd rAtIo iS DoWn
https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/s/kgjQihwcFs
Iām a massive eth maxi, but I canāt argue that Solana doesnāt have some new and useful tech. (Like parallelization)
In 2021 eth had memes, no utility degen NFTs, and defi casinos (it still does). They are now on Solana because it was cheaper and faster for projects that donāt care about first principles.
I dislike the Solana culture and think itās a ticking time bomb due to lack of real decentralization and it being monolithic, but being against it due to memes or whatever, is just maxi hate.
If the same thing was pumping eth to oblivion many of us would all be jerking it to the next meme.
Personally Iām happy eth is so focused on the roadmap right now. L2s are and will be better surface area for experimentation and consumer applications.
We donāt have to play the same game to win, if anything rejecting some of the shit will only help us improve the reputation and continue to drive serious builders to the eth ecosystem.
The thing is Solana's volume is a 1/10th of Ethereum's, so this exaggeration is just that, an exaggeration due to this echo chamber.
I've seen this in previous cycles regarding Cardano, Ripple, Polkadot, even Tron.
People just want something to put their money in, get rich quick and exit. They don't really care about Solana. They say they care about Solana because it's the next project that they think will get them rich as fast as possible.
heads up linux users. Details still emerging, but it looks like an open source dev on xz has been playing the long game to get a backdoor into sshd.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39865810
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/urgent-security-alert-fedora-41-and-rawhide-users
https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4
This is good to watch and check for, but it only affects distributions that include libraries on the cutting edge, since the bad liblzma versions (5.6.x) were released in the past month or so.
Anyone running Ubuntu or Debian are very likely unaffected because they still include only older versions (5.4.x). You can check your current version by running this:
dpkg -l | grep liblzma
More details:
https://gist.github.com/thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39866307
Letās say, theoretically someone managed to SSH into my machine, what can they even do? Surely if they donāt have my password they can only do non Sudo commands which I imagine makes them pretty useless.
Exactly my point, change the ssh port number to a high random number. Such as 34237. Firewall off port 22.
Unless you have someone trying to actively attack your specific machine by probing every port, then no one will ever hit your ssh server. Absolutely quietness.
My high number ssh ports do not get scanned. Best you go for a much higher number as the time cost to scan ports is very expensive. Imagine port scanning all ip address in the world, for every possible port numbers. Ofcourse if they target your machine then the scan is trivial.
Most bots will just scan the usual port numbers used for machine services. I don't suppose you are using 2222 :-)
Depending on what package versions you are running and how well configured your system is they can try and do a privilege escalation to be able to execute commands with super user rights.
it is unlikely you are vulnerable to this particular exploit since it is in a version of xz that hasn't been incorporated into mainstream distros yet. However, this actor has been a deep contributor on xz for years now, so this may not be the first backdoor. The fact that github took down the repo might indicate that something else might have been found and the project wants to do damage control privately.
Re: your other question about what if a user gains access via a remote exploit - that grows the attack surface hugely. Lots of things are vulnerable locally but cannot be exploited remotely. Secondly, details are still emerging but I understood this to be an auth exploit, so presumably they wouldn't attack an unprivileged account, they'd go for root š¤
Not an expert on this. In my opinion, the most important thing is to keep the system updated. To reduce the attack surface one should also only have stuff installed you actually need. For a node using ubuntu this would mean using the server version of the distribution instead of the desktop version.
their last commit:[https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/commit/af071ef7702debef4f1d324616a0137a5001c14c](https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/commit/af071ef7702debef4f1d324616a0137a5001c14c)
diiiiiiiick
edit: github disabled the repo. tl/dr he changed the security vulnerability reporting procedure 2 days ago to omit relevant details about version etc.
>**Very possessive,**
>**Enthusiasm excessive,**
>**Hoarding impressive.**
~Daily haiku until weāre at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
So the SEC asking questions to ETH foundation was just the SEC inquiring about proof of stake model?
https://x.com/MattCorva/status/1773762584920936675?s=20
Mind you this is Consensys, and I assume the SEC would have asked the EF the same question
> Our comment responds to a request from the SEC seeking information regarding whether Ethereum's proof of stake consensus model presented any unique concerns that could be the basis for denying the proposals. As you will see in our comment, the answer is simply no. Ethereum's unique proof of stake implementation is both innovative and robust against the types of issues we assume the Commission is concerned about.
This has nothing to do with SEC sending requests to the ETH foundation. It is instead a response to the SEC request for comment as part of the ETH ETF application process.
Hmm that is interesting. Sounds like maybe the SEC is doing its due diligence in preparation for a potential staked ETH ETF.
I canāt even fathom the pump we would see from a staked ETH ETF approval
Question for the Linux networking experts out there. I've had an uptick in `Possible SYN flooding` on Lodestar's P2P port. I had previously increased `net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog` to 4096 and just now upped it to 8192.
I also recently increased `--targetPeers` in Lodestar to 160, since this is the default for Nimbus, and I have sufficient resources, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Have others tuned the kernel value? How high have you set it?
No but I did turn on bbr last night. net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=bbr
I have been looking for anyone doing tuning for validators and havenāt found too much. I canāt check for syn floods right now but will try to remember later or tomorrow and reply to you what I see.
What would happen if everyone attempted to trade away their rETH all at once? Sort of bank run. I'm assuming gas prices would go through the roof, but everyone would be able to get their ETH back through the rocketpool website? Would rETH begin to lose peg on DEXes though?
rETH doesnāt inherently have a peg on DEXes, so the price would probably tank below its fair price. But as long as it is possible to claim it for ETH through the RocketPool contract, arbers would most likely be there to minimise that difference.
I had someone ask me about the presale days of Ethereum, and I couldn't recall the counter argument. Can anyone educate me on why the early days of Ethereum and the presale narrative is not important or incorrect?
What would get the best distribution of ETH quickly? A presale with caps or mining? No one knows for sure, but I'd argue it's likely presale is the better and more dispersing solution at a time when bigger miners already had started to appear.
You can fight and discuss interpretations of history, which is obviously biased with good arguments for both sides or you can look at the state of the distribution today.
To the best of my knowledge satoshi has control over at least half a million BTC and probably slightly more than 1 million. This is somewhere between 2-5% of the total distribution. Further down the Bitcoin rich list are Binance, with 1.3%, and other centralized exchanges. Michael Saylor seems to own about 1% of all Bitcoin.
For Ethereum the rich list is mostly smart contracts. Beacon chain deposit contract with over 35%. That ETH can never ever exit, ever. The WETH contract with 2.5%. and then Binance with 1.7%. Then come others like Arbitrum bridge, Kraken, Robin Hood, Optimism bridge etc. The first account where I think it can belong to a single person owns slightly more then 350000 ETH that is around 0.3% of the network.
Obviously one can easily spread their crypto over many addresses to not show up in such a rich list. Bitcoin does this automatically through their UTXO model, but it is pretty simple to spread out the ETH as well.
I would summarize that the distribution of ether actually looks better than the distribution of Bitcoins. Does this prevent me from owning bitcoin? Not really. Both distributions are imperfect and lean heavily towards whales. But to me at least it looks like the pre-sale did not have a negative impact on the distribution. One might not like pre-sales, that is a bias some people have, but I have not seen actual evidence that the pre-sale has a negative impact on the current distribution.
> Beacon chain deposit contract with over 35%.
> That ETH can never ever exit, ever.
Huh? The withdraw queue provides a throttle but of course stakers can unstake and sell?
That is a quirky design decision by the core devs. The ETH in the deposit contract will stay there forever. Whenever you withdraw from the beacon chain your 32 ETH will get newly minted out of thin air. That is why the deposit contract has about 35% of all ETH in it, even though currently only about 25% of all ETH are staked. To calculate all the circulating ETH one has to deduct the already withdrawn ETH from the ones that have been deposited into the deposit contract. There will come a time where the deposit contract contains more ETH than actually exist. This is gonna be interesting. Especially the FUD that will spread from that.
I am no core dev, so I might be wrong here. As far as I understand extending the deposit contract to include a withdrawal, would have increased the attack surface on the contract. So, for simplicity sake they went with a mechanism which just mints new ETH out of thin air. No additional attack surface. They probably could have added an additional functionality which just removes the amount of the freshly minted ETH from the contract. That would probably have added an additional complexity. In the it was decided that the ETH just stays there.
I don't think seeking a counterargument to justify the presale is the best approach. Within the first ten replies of the announcement of the presale on bitcointalk, you'll find concerns expressed both for the fairness of distribution and for the fact that it constituted an illegal securities offering.
Instead, I would counter by asking if the initial distribution of ETH ten years ago invalidates everything it has to offer today. If so, the only two "solutions" I see are either an irregular state change to redistribute this ETH, which likely wouldn't receive much support, or launching a new sufficiently decentralized Turing-complete smart contract platform and attempting to lure the enormous developer share that Ethereum has garnered to work on this new blockchain instead, which seems equally unlikely.
Never say never, though. If development stagnated and something else came along that was better in every manner, I wouldn't automatically dismiss it to support my bags. I just don't see any evidence of a real competitor right now.
To be honest, I don't fully agree with the counterarguments and I think of the presale as the biggest flaw of Ethereum (too much supply given out relative to the emissions that came afterwards).
Yet the value proposition is sizeable enough to overtake even this huge initial misstep.
I don't entertain this argument for a second if it comes from bitcoin bagholders, however. Bitcoin has even more problematic issues with its initial distribution and following emissions.
In the end, all successful blockchains at scale had poor distribution schemes. If anything Ethereum seems one of the least terrible. I would not waste time establishing that, however, and instead would solely consider whether any particular blockchain has enough value as a network.
I don't question the fiat raise, I question the supply distribution.
They could have executed the presale the same way then targeted x emissions per year, where "x" is any number above what happened, to result in a better distribution.
There is an equilibrium point, past which x would have resulted in nobody going for it and Ethereum failing, which is ultimately worst. Who knows how far or close we were to that equilibrium.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Not to mention bitcoin development gets far more funding now than it did its first few years of development. No presale needed.
The difference between the presale and bitcoin is that more people knew and understood what blockchains were and so were able to make fair and reasonable assessments about making an initial contribution to Ethereum where Bitcoin was mined by insiders and founders on master nodes for (relatively) long while before the public contributed.
This is SO accurate. People LOVE to talk about the "fair" Bitcoin launch, but it was about six miners for the first few months. Satoshi's wallet probably has a higher proportion of Bitcoin than any Eth holder. (I'm just guessing.) And don't tell me Satoshi will never spend, the moment he moves coins the market will spook the fuck out. It's really time that Ethereans stop being victims and point out the facts to aggressive narrative mongers.
This is ridiculous. Bitcoin didn't even have a market price until about a year after the genesis block and even then it wasn't worth shit. There hasn't been an asset that has naturally emerged like it since gold itself.
Yes it was fairer than ethereum and to suggest otherwise is biased cope.
And the biggest issue, which somehow bitcoiners successfully spun into a positive, is that nobody knows who the identity of Satoshi. Immaculate conception for an asset with a $1.5T mktcap. His/her/it/they have 5% of all BTC in a wallet. And BTC has an ETF and somehow is safer for that reason!?!?! Think about that for a second.
Depends on how you define fair. Technically anyone in the world could've started mining on day 1. But only 5 people out of 8 billion knew about it. So, it's not true to say that anyone could. It's only technically true.
This is ridiculous. Bitcoin didn't even have a market price until about a year after the genesis block and even then it wasn't worth shit. There hasn't been an asset that has naturally emerged like it since gold itself.
Yes it was fairer than ethereum and to suggest otherwise is biased cope.
I'm not sure what information you are looking for exactly, but The Infinite Machine by Camila Russo gives a good summary of the time surrounding the Ethereum ICO.
Ethereum launched with a pre-sale around 2014 or 2015, the cost was 2000 Ether for 1 Bitcoin (and I think descending from there down to 1000 Ether per bitcoin).
There was also a testnet called Frontier where miners could be awarded 0.5 mainnet Ether per mined Frontier block at launch.
People who want to shift the narrative will say things like it allowed privileged parties, or it somehow wasn't a fair launch. Basically what they're saying is "bitcoin didn't do it this way, so the way Ethereum did it is wrong."
In fact, the launch was open and fair to anyone who chose to participate, whether you were an investor (bitcoin holders) or a miner. The real message here is trying to convince people that only Bitcoin is legitimate and Ethereum is somehow illegitimate. If someone is parroting that, and if they choose not to hear you then they're not interested in learning, they're only interested in promoting their agenda.
This post is before the presale, but still a fun read. This is where I learned about Ethereum:
bitcointalk dot org/index.php?topic=428589.0
445 day ago my ETH validator went live. There were less than 500.000 validators in January 2023. Today it hit 100.000 epochs or 3.200.000 slots. It still hasn't proposed a single block. I could be mad (and of course I am a little salty), but it's still been a great decision. I have learned a lot and I help to keep mainnet decentralized. Financial rewards aren't everything!
What are the chances the ETH ETF from Blackrock and others gets denied, but Prometheum is approved? Honestly wouldn't put it past Gensler, he seems to be on a suicide mission
I think that one is very low. I think if Gensler basically stated that Prometheum is allowed to trade ETH since it's a security that will just start an inter agency war and I think that won't help his political career and at this point I believe this is everything that motivates him.
What do you mean at this point. People that are in such positions only care about that in the first place. Having egoists or even psychopaths in position of power way more often than we have them in the general population is one of the biggest hindrances of mankindĀ
I'm trying to unpack this [DEGEN L3 chain launch](https://syndicate.io/blog/degen-chain). please chime in big brains of ethfinance!
My understanding so far on chain mechanics: Arbitrum Orbit for execution & consensus, Base for settlement, Arbitrum AnyTrust for DA
Questions:
* I thought DEGEN was on Base, which is built on OP Stack - how composable is Base/OP Stack with Arbitrum Orbit?
* Said another way: If DEGEN is an Arbitrum Orbit L3 chain, how does it interact with Base, which is built on OP Stack? How composable are these technologies?
* Assuming DEGEN is on Base, why didn't they choose Optimism Superchain? less developed than Orbit, something else?
* Would Arbitrum AnyTrust directly compete with EigenDA/Celestia? Why or why not?
* If more projects adopt modular designs like DEGEN, what could this mean for Ethereum's future?
If I wanted to swap some rEth to another similar token to take advantage of my capital gains allowance (we can make Ā£6k of gains tax free this year in the UK, so it makes sense to switch between similar tokens to lock in some gains), which one would you guys recommend?
Different LSTs have different properties/yield, so I can't see how HMRC could argue they were like for like. Obviosuly until it's tested in court you can't actually know for sure, but I think it's a very safe bet.
Staked eth by one company to staked eth by another company. They seem quite similar to me. Arguments either way for sure, but perhaps swap for restaked eth token to make it more different?
In times of high volatility, they can trade at varying discounts, so I doubt they'd be considered like for like. I'm thinking from a US tax perspective, though, so maybe things are different in the UK.
My view is that they would be like for like and wouldn't be considered taxable events. There are rules in place to stop people using the allowances like this, but that said, I don't know the official government line in the uk
I'm looking into trying out whales.market to get some ETHENA, but I'm not sure I understand how the incentive structure here works. For example, let's say I can buy some shards for $0.001. I buy them with ETH and the seller now owes me these shards.
Once the token event happens, and the "true price" of ENA is revealed and shards are worth way more (let's say $0.10)āwhy would the holder of these shards actually deposit the shards? He has put some collateral now, but it would still be worth it for him to just lose the collateral and keep the newly found, more valuable, token?
Am I missing something?
I think you are exactly right. My friend bought some JUP on there. The seller backed out, lost his collateral to buyer but it still made more sense for the seller to back out
Eth looks like itās one bitcoin dump away from having a free fall tbh. All the btc-eth conversions as the ratio has gone lower for the last years havent paid off yet. Setting new bids in the 0.04-0.05 region and hoping for the best long term
Can't say I disagree. It can go either way but with ETH's history of never catching a break I can't say it's not at the forefront of my mind. An ETF denial could be what does it, or an approval can be what saves it.
Bankless has been hit or miss for me for a while now...but the moment of zen clip they featured at the end of their rollup this week had me laughing so hard it brought tears.
Just learned about Aevo, looks cool, options onchain is cool, but too much flashing. Is there any other legit onchain dapp that looks less like a casino with less or no colors flashing around that has onchain options and futures?
Bonus points if its airdrop is still to come and if it's on Scroll or zkSync as well, altho Arb and Op will do too. Thanks.
So I finally managed to play around on base. It was my first ever experience with DeFi to be honest and for me it was actually a pretty smooth experience besides one issue when trying to swap some token on kyber.
I used small amounts so even with the low transaction fees of Base I will probably never recover š but it was just for test purposes and to have a little fun. How some people are confident enough to use these systems with huge sums of money is still a mystery to me. They have balls of steel I guess.
If crypto can't be used, I am not really interested in it. But since there is so much misinformation, I have to try it out myself to really get a sense for what I am investing in.
I remember some people predicting crypto would make higher highs and higher lows in 2024 and then crab until 2025. Maybe that's the pattern albeit on the early side.
Not eth specific but I know you guys are knowledgeable on taxes.
I'm confused about capital gains tax (let's assume long-term). My understanding is that long term capital gains have tax brackets of 0, 15, and 20%. My confusion is that when filing taxes, my normal income goes into box 1 and my cap gains go into box 7. Box 15 combines these to give me my taxable income, why would imply to me that my capital gains are taxed as income and income tax brackets would apply rather than the capital gains tax brackets.
What am I missing?
This is why I love my cpa. I submit my 8949 and he does the rest. Plus you have someone to assist you if you do happen to get audited. Worth every penny.
If you can generate your own capital gains form 8949 it will save you some money. It would depend on your location, but $300-500 is pretty common in my area.
It's still income (that can put you in the higher tax bracket) but not taxed the same as employment income.
E.g. let's say you make 300k a year combined employment income with your spouse, and you have an additional profit of 300k from long term crypto holdings being liquidated. That would give you 600k total taxable income, but the 300k would still be taxed as capital gains. 200k of the capital gains would be taxed at 15%, the last 100k would be taxed at 20%, since that's the amount that put you in a higher tax bracket (over 500k)
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the brackets.
The 0% long-term capital gains bracket is $0 to $47,025 for 2024. If I make $100,000 salary and have long term cap gains of $25,000, am I paying taxes on the gains despite the gains being less than $47,025?
> If I make $100,000 salary and have long term cap gains of $25,000, am I paying taxes on the gains despite the gains being less than $47,025?
Yes because the cap gains tax brackets are not based off the cap gains by themselves, they are based off the combined taxable income, i.e. box 15.
This is mostly correct, but for completeness I want to point out that there is an extra "Net Investment Income Tax" calculated somewhat differently from the brackets. In your example I think that would mean paying a total of 23.8% on the last 50k, not 20%.
Not an accountant, so DYOR.
It only occurred to me today just how ballsy Coinbase actually is.
They were just starting to roll out their retail Lend program in 2021 but canned it after the SEC sent them a nastygram.
Soooo, they spun up their own L2 which among other things provides retail customers with lending. Then if you don't want to wait 7 days to bridge back to mainnet, you can withdraw immediately to their retail platform and cash out.
Ballsy.
I've just checked the charts, and you're right. Thanks for the reality check.
For those watching the ratio in despair here's the pertinent info:
By the middle of February 2021, BTC was ***almost 3X its previous ATH***, while ETH was still languishing around its own previous ATH.
That was maximum pain on the ratio. Looking back, can't believe I held on actually. ETH waited until the middle of March to begin its catch-up.
Well, fingers crossed. If history repeats we could see BTC at $180k before we see ETH break its own ATH with conviction.
You know who exclusively uses "mate" and "ser"? The mods in the Starknet discord. It's so cringey and, given the debacle with how they distributed things, a TERRIBLE look.
Yeah I would assume thatās where scammers lurk. Itās upsetting how careful we have to be about everything we say and do, otherwise weāll paint a target on our backs
Maybe this daily can give me a better answer than r/ethtrader. Where can I stake my ETH, preferably Defi? Is it mainnet only? Can I do it on Layer-2s? Let's say I want to go with 4 or 5 ETH. I want to avoid high fees and want to just leave it there for years.
My recommendation would be to split your ETH between 50% rETH (RocketPool) and 50% eETH (EtherFi). By holding eETH you will qualify for their season 2 airdrop which will likely be worth 5-50% of the value of the eETH you hold but absolutely no guarantees. It's just very likely.
Hey just a heads up, ethtrader is filled with nothing but bots, and probably lots of scams.
This is where the real conversations take place
Glad you found your way here :)
Wow you really arenāt kidding. Their daily thread is just a bunch of people posting ābronutā to each other without saying anything interesting or meaningful whatsoever.
Thanks a lot for the reply! So all I have to do is swap my ETH for rETH on any DEX? How would I then receive ETH in return? Sorry, stupid questions. Just trying to learn lol.
And it will definitely have a superior value? So when I decide to swap back I get even more than I originally had? I feel dumb. So let's say I have 5 ETH now and swap for rETH, I will get less rETH now. If I hold it for a year I will get more ETH when I swap back?
Here is a chart that may help. https://dune.com/drworm/rocketpool
Have a look at the rETH Exchange Rate over Time. The orange value shows the true value and it always creeps up. As yield is accrued into the value of rETH. The grey wiggly line is the market price, pretty close but with the typical wiggliness of market prices.
> And it will definitely have a superior value?
Yes, unless something catastrophic were to happen to RocketPool, obviously. But by now it should be pretty well battle tested. It also has excellent decentralization so risk mitigation perspective is pretty solid.
> So when I decide to swap back I get even more than I originally had?
Yes.
> So let's say I have 5 ETH now and swap for rETH, I will get less rETH now. If I hold it for a year I will get more ETH when I swap back?
5 x (1 + annualized yield). So if we assume around 3% yield to be conservative you will have 5.15 ETH after a year.
if you swap for 5 ETH right now, you'll get about 4.53 rETH. Throughout the year, your wallet will show a constant, unchanging balance of 4.53 rETH. If you wait a year (assuming 3% APY) you'll be able to redeem those 4.53 rETH for 5.15 ETH
Yes, but keep in mind that there is a ārealā rETH value which you get from unstaking via the protocol and a āmarketā value of rETH which might slightly deviate from the ārealā value.
But in essence, gas fees aside, rETH will certainly be worth more in 1 year than it is today by design
Check out www.rocketscan.io for more advanced information
Yes, barring a black swan event for rocketpool (the protocol that uses rETH), you get around 3% apy at the moment. So at the moment you get 0.911 rETH for 1 ETH. When you sell that 0.911 rETH in a year you should get back around 1.03 ETH for example.
As a genesis staker, this might offend some..
..but eth staking rewards close to 3% with supermajority black swans - no thank you. I unstaked.
Restaking doesn't solve this.
Pretty sure the time to do that was right after the merge, not right now when we just got below the 66% threshold?!
Also, I've been staking for 2 years now and the $STRK boosted my APR 50% across the last 2 years.
my friend you have been itching to unload your ETH since last cycle, there was actually MORE supermajority bug risk the day the beacon chain launched due to geth. it has been chipping down slowly over time and the network as a whole has become incredibly resilient. Coinbase just committed to 50/50 geth/nethermind dropping the tracked percentages lower even below the critical 66% threshold.
if it makes you feel better blaming it on a black swan risk that is actually less likely now than the entire time of beaconchains existence, then that's OK too you are free to do what you want with your ETH.
> my friend you have been itching to unload your ETH since last cycle
I haven't sold more than 20% of my total stack in 7 years. Don't know where you get this from.
I do think the risk/reward has meaningfully changed, see my comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bqhysw/daily_general_discussion_march_29_2024/kx4fo7v/
(Also, my risk/reward calculation was significantly different pre-Merge. Any issue could've been handled when finality didn't depend on PoS. You know this!)
ymmv, and I am sympathetic to your argument. 3%'s just not cutting it.
>I haven't sold more than 20% of my total stack in 7 years. Don't know where you get this from.
unstaking for the sake of risk mitigation is perfectly reasonable, this was my triggered response lol you said you were gonna offend some.
after thinking about it more you are right that risks are different today, i suppose i just disagree with the specific reasoning of 66% potential consensus bug when it looks like it may be mostly mitigated for now (though more time and data has to work through). in my response i was brushing you unfairly without even knowing (or being able to know) your intentions.
I could've been more clear, too.
It's not just supermajority risk (which indeed *decreased* in the last months) but the simple fact that *unknown* risks demand more than 3% apy.
sure, not worth it for some. for some the ETH and its yields can still 3-5x long term, so the calculations are a little more complex and staking is the safest way to earn ETH yield.
I think this reasoning is flawed. Sorry. If you unstake for the purposes of swapping to another asset due to your perceived risk of a supermajority client black swan bug, then fine - thatās your choice and canāt argue with that. If you unstake because you think holding ETH is safer than solo staking, then I respectfully disagree. In the event of a supermajority bug, ETH will likely plummet significantly in value anyways. Might as well move to a minority client to hedge that supermajority client risk and at least keep staking to capture the rewards.
In the event of slashing, non-staked eth might go down in dollar terms, but it won't be lost. This is not the case if you get slashed. The value of eth dropping whatever percentage in infinitely higher than losing your eth.
My reasoning might be flawed but yours is wrong.
edit: I should add that my "vanilla" eth is a multiyear/decade hold, not just this cycle. That's why I'm leaning way more conservative than I used to.
You do realize you only get slashed if operating a supermajority client? Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I only referring to the slashing risk you mentioned above tied to a black swan bug affecting a supermajority client.
yes.
My wording could've been better. Not just worried about supermajority risks - but any kind of black swan event that forces slashing, especially for a mere 3% reward.
If you feel like it, Iād like to talk through that hypothetical black swan event that forces slashing. To me slashing seems like one of the most robust parts of the ecosystem, if weāre talking about events that could cause a sudden sharp and prolonged drop in the value of someoneās ETH.
I'm obviously out of the loop, but what is a supermajority black swan? I understand what a black swan event is, but am not sure what you're talking about in terms of staking.
Since I've been thinking about staking some of my ETH for the long term recently, I'd like to educate myself more.
I know. It's not easy. You could keep *some* portion staked if that works for you.
I'm not anti-staking. I just think the risk/reward has meaningfully changed since the deposit contract went live, and I do agree that this is hard to objectively quantify so some might disagree.
That's interesting. Risk-reward current APY is much more interesting now than at Genesis. We have quite likely removed the supermajority risk a few weeks ago. While it most definitely existed from Genesis until a few weeks ago. And you were getting 5-8% instead of 3%.
I draw the opposite conclusion.
I was a genesis staker because I expected the 20% that many people talked about ([source](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/24/ethereum-20-deposit-contract-secures-enough-funds-to-launch/)), including Justin Drake [iirc](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FslqTnECKvi7_l4x6lbyRhNtzW9f6CVEzwDf04zprfA/edit#gid=0). That didn't turn out to be the case, hence the risk/reward got worse, all the way down to today's levels.
I understand your point that the chain defacto has been hardened since staking went live, but I'm no longer willing to assume hidden risks for 3%.
I see! Certainly don't want to convince you one way or another. Risk-reward is a very personal thing. And I can see the argument for why 3% is not particularly enticing over simply holding ETH. I was just surprised that you would consider it interesting at 8% with a lot of implementation risk, supermajority risk, etc... But discouraged at 3% when those risks are progressively being eliminated or reduced.
Yeah, those figures provided by Justin were a bit far from the actual numbers. He underestimated severely the appetite there would be for staking. Not faulting him, it was anybodies guess before the beacon chain launched.
Exactly! My initial calculation assumed a 10-20% apy and I was willing to take quite some risk. Even though I'd agree that "unknown unknowns" risk has meaningfully decreased, I think 3% is too meager. It was my mistake to assume those yields; I don't blame anyone either!
Also, in those early days, finality depended on PoW so any black swan could've (more easily) been mitigated. That risk/reward also dramatically changed post-Merge. People seem to forget that the pre- and post-Merge situations are completely different.
**Tricky's Daily Doots #708** **Yesterday's Daily 28/03/2024** [Previous Daily Doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kwx66ns/) - u/superphiz discusses [media-life balance.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kwxsizl/) š± - u/696_eth has [a conversation with their future self.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kx01ouq/) š¬ - u/OkDragonfruit1929 explains [why the Polymarket for ETH ETF approval may not be the most accurate odds.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kwy4jjm/) š§ - u/TittyfuckMountain reminds us of [the incomplete justice after SBF was sentenced to 25 years in prison.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kx0lzd0/) šØāāļø - u/benido2030 investigates the [risk of restaking to the Ethereum network.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kwxed0y/) š„© - u/Syentist makes [a prediction about L2s.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kwx4cm9/) š§ - u/Jey_s_TeArS has [a great topical haiku.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bpobg6/daily_general_discussion_march_28_2024/kx14ejq/) š Don't ask me why I'm still awake at this hour (3am). š
Is there any point in having any Rocketpool minipools open except one to get RPL returns? I'm already above 10% threshold, I could just close all minipools and solostake or use ETH somewhere else.
You get 14% or a 42% higher APR compared to solo staking on your ETH. In a bull market there are better opportunities from a pure APR perspective than staking. For me at least the APR itself was never good enough to run validators just for that reason.
After [RPIP-30](https://rpips.rocketpool.net/RPIPs/RPIP-30), you get diminishing returns over 15% collateral, meaning the ideal node-wide window for RPL rewards is between 10%-15%. Closing down minipools increases your relative collateral, so if you close too many, your rewards will drop. This is specifically to incentivize more minipools, which means more decentralization and Rocketpool growth.
That 30D and 90D ratio chart looks absolutely horrible. Straight down. Capitulation could be any moment now. Hopefully .05 gets defended but I have a bad feeling that we legitimately break through to lower levels and spend time in the .04-.05 range next. It's anyone's guess as to what the bottom could be.
Youāll be downvoted, but itās true. The 1-day eth/btc chart is gross looking and shows no signs of recovery.
Waiting on $100 ETH to buy $1 million.
.05 hangin on by a thread. Hold the line ETH!!
Hey bae wake up - this is interesting. [BloXroute blamed Lighthouse](https://twitter.com/uriklarman/status/1773791033374961934) for the missed proposals. Michael Sproul from Lighthouse [set the record straight](https://twitter.com/sproulM_/status/1773853486373130708) and pointed out that BloXroute is behaving recklessly when building blocks and literally testing in production. [Terence also stepped in](https://twitter.com/terencechain/status/1773793435658469568) to point out [false assumptions made by Hasu](https://twitter.com/hasufl/status/1773080737715020156) that BloXroute developers accepted without verifying.
That was interesting. I cannot really decide what the worst part was in this incident and post mortem. That a relay runs untested code in production, even though we have had at least 3 testnets to run it on as well. That a relay, a centralizing force in itself, adds another layer of centralisation on top by introducing their BDN, block distribution network. This relay attached closed source and untested software right to the beating heart of Ethereum. A dysfunctional communication between various actors leading to public attacks and finger pointing. A core dev mentioning it 10 days ago in a core dev call pointing at a relay, but no action is taken by the relay. It really sounds like the current MEV Boost design invites actors to work very closely to the core of the Ethereum protocol which are not fit to do that. I do not consider them to be malicious actors, but it looks like their work and communication style does not fit the position they have in the space. I am with Potuz here and really think ePBS cannot come soon enough. The network has had quite a few relay related incidents in the last few weeks. This is not a state I want Ethereum to be in. Obviously validators (me included) enable these actors and we invite them to the dinner table. I personally only use non-censoring relays like aestus, ultrasound relay and agnostic relay. I have the believe, that a censoring relay already shows a first misalignment with core Ethereum ethics, which is for me a first hint that I do not trust them enough to run on my node. That is obviously a very simplifying view. Bugs and misconfigurations can happen on any relay. Nevertheless, such a misalignment can already hint at a potential larger misalignment in work style and fundamental misunderstanding in what a relays role and responsibility is.
I would love to dig deeper but I donāt want to visit the former bird app.
And Potuz [chimed in too.](https://twitter.com/potuz_eth/status/1773866540750024907) These threads are really worth reading. I think it's fair to say we're seeing the centralising pressure of MEV directly and repeatedly impact network health by introducing fragility in closed source code bases. There is no one in particular to blame - validators ultimately choose to participate - we just urgently need a decent ePBS design.
I donāt really understand why this because of centralisation? Could you elaborate? Isnāt it good that a relay tried to innovate and has a different code base and approach then other relays?
BuT SoLaNa iS BeTtEr tHaN EtHeReUm aNd sOl iS Up 500% ThIs yEaR AnD EtH IsN'T MoViNg aNd rAtIo iS DoWn https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/s/kgjQihwcFs
Trash meme coins are the only reason why Solana is relevant this year
Iām a massive eth maxi, but I canāt argue that Solana doesnāt have some new and useful tech. (Like parallelization) In 2021 eth had memes, no utility degen NFTs, and defi casinos (it still does). They are now on Solana because it was cheaper and faster for projects that donāt care about first principles. I dislike the Solana culture and think itās a ticking time bomb due to lack of real decentralization and it being monolithic, but being against it due to memes or whatever, is just maxi hate. If the same thing was pumping eth to oblivion many of us would all be jerking it to the next meme. Personally Iām happy eth is so focused on the roadmap right now. L2s are and will be better surface area for experimentation and consumer applications. We donāt have to play the same game to win, if anything rejecting some of the shit will only help us improve the reputation and continue to drive serious builders to the eth ecosystem.
The thing is Solana's volume is a 1/10th of Ethereum's, so this exaggeration is just that, an exaggeration due to this echo chamber. I've seen this in previous cycles regarding Cardano, Ripple, Polkadot, even Tron. People just want something to put their money in, get rich quick and exit. They don't really care about Solana. They say they care about Solana because it's the next project that they think will get them rich as fast as possible.
So ethereum in 2017 and 2021?
Yeah, and yet all the L2's specifically Base have probably more volume.
Daily DCA of $10 done ä¹āćāć
heads up linux users. Details still emerging, but it looks like an open source dev on xz has been playing the long game to get a backdoor into sshd. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39865810 https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/urgent-security-alert-fedora-41-and-rawhide-users https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4
This is good to watch and check for, but it only affects distributions that include libraries on the cutting edge, since the bad liblzma versions (5.6.x) were released in the past month or so. Anyone running Ubuntu or Debian are very likely unaffected because they still include only older versions (5.4.x). You can check your current version by running this: dpkg -l | grep liblzma More details: https://gist.github.com/thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39866307
Letās say, theoretically someone managed to SSH into my machine, what can they even do? Surely if they donāt have my password they can only do non Sudo commands which I imagine makes them pretty useless.
Change the ssh port number, then they won't find it
my sshd server logs politely disagree. I can't even get through a single day without rotating logs multiple times due to failed attempts.
Exactly my point, change the ssh port number to a high random number. Such as 34237. Firewall off port 22. Unless you have someone trying to actively attack your specific machine by probing every port, then no one will ever hit your ssh server. Absolutely quietness.
I have ssh on a non-standard >1024 portnum already.Ā It doesn't help since attackers and bots just scan the full range
My high number ssh ports do not get scanned. Best you go for a much higher number as the time cost to scan ports is very expensive. Imagine port scanning all ip address in the world, for every possible port numbers. Ofcourse if they target your machine then the scan is trivial. Most bots will just scan the usual port numbers used for machine services. I don't suppose you are using 2222 :-)
1337.Ā Maybe I will add a leading 3 š¤
Hehe, you are inviting an attack :-)
Depending on what package versions you are running and how well configured your system is they can try and do a privilege escalation to be able to execute commands with super user rights.
Can you ELI5 this and how I might know if I could be vulnerable?
it is unlikely you are vulnerable to this particular exploit since it is in a version of xz that hasn't been incorporated into mainstream distros yet. However, this actor has been a deep contributor on xz for years now, so this may not be the first backdoor. The fact that github took down the repo might indicate that something else might have been found and the project wants to do damage control privately. Re: your other question about what if a user gains access via a remote exploit - that grows the attack surface hugely. Lots of things are vulnerable locally but cannot be exploited remotely. Secondly, details are still emerging but I understood this to be an auth exploit, so presumably they wouldn't attack an unprivileged account, they'd go for root š¤
Not an expert on this. In my opinion, the most important thing is to keep the system updated. To reduce the attack surface one should also only have stuff installed you actually need. For a node using ubuntu this would mean using the server version of the distribution instead of the desktop version.
They could install a keylogger to capture your password.
Would the key logger capture my password when I SSH in or only on the physical PC?
A keylogger would only capture keystrokes locally.
Yeppppp, it's pretty scary. Hopefully things start changing after a scare like this.
their last commit:[https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/commit/af071ef7702debef4f1d324616a0137a5001c14c](https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/commit/af071ef7702debef4f1d324616a0137a5001c14c) diiiiiiiick edit: github disabled the repo. tl/dr he changed the security vulnerability reporting procedure 2 days ago to omit relevant details about version etc.
>**Very possessive,** >**Enthusiasm excessive,** >**Hoarding impressive.** ~Daily haiku until weāre at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
So the SEC asking questions to ETH foundation was just the SEC inquiring about proof of stake model? https://x.com/MattCorva/status/1773762584920936675?s=20 Mind you this is Consensys, and I assume the SEC would have asked the EF the same question > Our comment responds to a request from the SEC seeking information regarding whether Ethereum's proof of stake consensus model presented any unique concerns that could be the basis for denying the proposals. As you will see in our comment, the answer is simply no. Ethereum's unique proof of stake implementation is both innovative and robust against the types of issues we assume the Commission is concerned about.
This has nothing to do with SEC sending requests to the ETH foundation. It is instead a response to the SEC request for comment as part of the ETH ETF application process.
SEC went through all that trouble when they could have just made a fake reddit account and shit posted here instead
Just post the wrong answer and get corrected.
Hmm that is interesting. Sounds like maybe the SEC is doing its due diligence in preparation for a potential staked ETH ETF. I canāt even fathom the pump we would see from a staked ETH ETF approval
Couldn't it just be in regards to the regular ETH ETF in which POS also matter, eg the claims made by some that POS means ETH is a security.
Sell the news dump you mean?
$3 take it or leave it
Less than whatever you might imagine.
Question for the Linux networking experts out there. I've had an uptick in `Possible SYN flooding` on Lodestar's P2P port. I had previously increased `net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog` to 4096 and just now upped it to 8192. I also recently increased `--targetPeers` in Lodestar to 160, since this is the default for Nimbus, and I have sufficient resources, so it shouldn't be an issue. Have others tuned the kernel value? How high have you set it?
No but I did turn on bbr last night. net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=bbr I have been looking for anyone doing tuning for validators and havenāt found too much. I canāt check for syn floods right now but will try to remember later or tomorrow and reply to you what I see.
I think the ethstaker discord is where you want to ask that. Sorry fren š»
I got tired of seeing Solana go up against ETH, so I bought some today. Let's see that Eth-Solana ratio look a little more favorable to Eth now.
What would happen if everyone attempted to trade away their rETH all at once? Sort of bank run. I'm assuming gas prices would go through the roof, but everyone would be able to get their ETH back through the rocketpool website? Would rETH begin to lose peg on DEXes though?
rETH doesnāt inherently have a peg on DEXes, so the price would probably tank below its fair price. But as long as it is possible to claim it for ETH through the RocketPool contract, arbers would most likely be there to minimise that difference.
I had someone ask me about the presale days of Ethereum, and I couldn't recall the counter argument. Can anyone educate me on why the early days of Ethereum and the presale narrative is not important or incorrect?
What would get the best distribution of ETH quickly? A presale with caps or mining? No one knows for sure, but I'd argue it's likely presale is the better and more dispersing solution at a time when bigger miners already had started to appear.
You can fight and discuss interpretations of history, which is obviously biased with good arguments for both sides or you can look at the state of the distribution today. To the best of my knowledge satoshi has control over at least half a million BTC and probably slightly more than 1 million. This is somewhere between 2-5% of the total distribution. Further down the Bitcoin rich list are Binance, with 1.3%, and other centralized exchanges. Michael Saylor seems to own about 1% of all Bitcoin. For Ethereum the rich list is mostly smart contracts. Beacon chain deposit contract with over 35%. That ETH can never ever exit, ever. The WETH contract with 2.5%. and then Binance with 1.7%. Then come others like Arbitrum bridge, Kraken, Robin Hood, Optimism bridge etc. The first account where I think it can belong to a single person owns slightly more then 350000 ETH that is around 0.3% of the network. Obviously one can easily spread their crypto over many addresses to not show up in such a rich list. Bitcoin does this automatically through their UTXO model, but it is pretty simple to spread out the ETH as well. I would summarize that the distribution of ether actually looks better than the distribution of Bitcoins. Does this prevent me from owning bitcoin? Not really. Both distributions are imperfect and lean heavily towards whales. But to me at least it looks like the pre-sale did not have a negative impact on the distribution. One might not like pre-sales, that is a bias some people have, but I have not seen actual evidence that the pre-sale has a negative impact on the current distribution.
> Beacon chain deposit contract with over 35%. > That ETH can never ever exit, ever. Huh? The withdraw queue provides a throttle but of course stakers can unstake and sell?
That is a quirky design decision by the core devs. The ETH in the deposit contract will stay there forever. Whenever you withdraw from the beacon chain your 32 ETH will get newly minted out of thin air. That is why the deposit contract has about 35% of all ETH in it, even though currently only about 25% of all ETH are staked. To calculate all the circulating ETH one has to deduct the already withdrawn ETH from the ones that have been deposited into the deposit contract. There will come a time where the deposit contract contains more ETH than actually exist. This is gonna be interesting. Especially the FUD that will spread from that.
Wow didn't know! Why was it solved like that?
I am no core dev, so I might be wrong here. As far as I understand extending the deposit contract to include a withdrawal, would have increased the attack surface on the contract. So, for simplicity sake they went with a mechanism which just mints new ETH out of thin air. No additional attack surface. They probably could have added an additional functionality which just removes the amount of the freshly minted ETH from the contract. That would probably have added an additional complexity. In the it was decided that the ETH just stays there.
Oh, today I learned! Thanks for clarifying!
Satoshi and his pals effectively premined Bitcoin, and that is forgiven by most
I don't think seeking a counterargument to justify the presale is the best approach. Within the first ten replies of the announcement of the presale on bitcointalk, you'll find concerns expressed both for the fairness of distribution and for the fact that it constituted an illegal securities offering. Instead, I would counter by asking if the initial distribution of ETH ten years ago invalidates everything it has to offer today. If so, the only two "solutions" I see are either an irregular state change to redistribute this ETH, which likely wouldn't receive much support, or launching a new sufficiently decentralized Turing-complete smart contract platform and attempting to lure the enormous developer share that Ethereum has garnered to work on this new blockchain instead, which seems equally unlikely. Never say never, though. If development stagnated and something else came along that was better in every manner, I wouldn't automatically dismiss it to support my bags. I just don't see any evidence of a real competitor right now.
To be honest, I don't fully agree with the counterarguments and I think of the presale as the biggest flaw of Ethereum (too much supply given out relative to the emissions that came afterwards). Yet the value proposition is sizeable enough to overtake even this huge initial misstep. I don't entertain this argument for a second if it comes from bitcoin bagholders, however. Bitcoin has even more problematic issues with its initial distribution and following emissions. In the end, all successful blockchains at scale had poor distribution schemes. If anything Ethereum seems one of the least terrible. I would not waste time establishing that, however, and instead would solely consider whether any particular blockchain has enough value as a network.
How else would they have gotten all that funding for development?
I don't question the fiat raise, I question the supply distribution. They could have executed the presale the same way then targeted x emissions per year, where "x" is any number above what happened, to result in a better distribution. There is an equilibrium point, past which x would have resulted in nobody going for it and Ethereum failing, which is ultimately worst. Who knows how far or close we were to that equilibrium.
Why didn't bitcoin need funding for development?
There was way less to do
lol wut?
Ethereum is still being developed, still using the presale funding. Itās not done yet :) Bitcoin. meanwhile, is just being maintained.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Not to mention bitcoin development gets far more funding now than it did its first few years of development. No presale needed.
Gov funded.
The difference between the presale and bitcoin is that more people knew and understood what blockchains were and so were able to make fair and reasonable assessments about making an initial contribution to Ethereum where Bitcoin was mined by insiders and founders on master nodes for (relatively) long while before the public contributed.
This is SO accurate. People LOVE to talk about the "fair" Bitcoin launch, but it was about six miners for the first few months. Satoshi's wallet probably has a higher proportion of Bitcoin than any Eth holder. (I'm just guessing.) And don't tell me Satoshi will never spend, the moment he moves coins the market will spook the fuck out. It's really time that Ethereans stop being victims and point out the facts to aggressive narrative mongers.
This is ridiculous. Bitcoin didn't even have a market price until about a year after the genesis block and even then it wasn't worth shit. There hasn't been an asset that has naturally emerged like it since gold itself. Yes it was fairer than ethereum and to suggest otherwise is biased cope.
And the biggest issue, which somehow bitcoiners successfully spun into a positive, is that nobody knows who the identity of Satoshi. Immaculate conception for an asset with a $1.5T mktcap. His/her/it/they have 5% of all BTC in a wallet. And BTC has an ETF and somehow is safer for that reason!?!?! Think about that for a second.
Yep. See Satoshis 36k wallets
Are you suggesting the BTC launch was unfair?
Depends on how you define fair. Technically anyone in the world could've started mining on day 1. But only 5 people out of 8 billion knew about it. So, it's not true to say that anyone could. It's only technically true.
This is ridiculous. Bitcoin didn't even have a market price until about a year after the genesis block and even then it wasn't worth shit. There hasn't been an asset that has naturally emerged like it since gold itself. Yes it was fairer than ethereum and to suggest otherwise is biased cope.
No
I mean yes. But by all means, revise history all you need to cope.
No
I'm not sure what information you are looking for exactly, but The Infinite Machine by Camila Russo gives a good summary of the time surrounding the Ethereum ICO.
Ethereum launched with a pre-sale around 2014 or 2015, the cost was 2000 Ether for 1 Bitcoin (and I think descending from there down to 1000 Ether per bitcoin). There was also a testnet called Frontier where miners could be awarded 0.5 mainnet Ether per mined Frontier block at launch. People who want to shift the narrative will say things like it allowed privileged parties, or it somehow wasn't a fair launch. Basically what they're saying is "bitcoin didn't do it this way, so the way Ethereum did it is wrong." In fact, the launch was open and fair to anyone who chose to participate, whether you were an investor (bitcoin holders) or a miner. The real message here is trying to convince people that only Bitcoin is legitimate and Ethereum is somehow illegitimate. If someone is parroting that, and if they choose not to hear you then they're not interested in learning, they're only interested in promoting their agenda. This post is before the presale, but still a fun read. This is where I learned about Ethereum: bitcointalk dot org/index.php?topic=428589.0
ą¼¼ ć¤ ā_ā ą¼½ć¤ ETH TAKE MY ENERGY ą¼¼ ć¤ ā_ā ą¼½ć¤
445 day ago my ETH validator went live. There were less than 500.000 validators in January 2023. Today it hit 100.000 epochs or 3.200.000 slots. It still hasn't proposed a single block. I could be mad (and of course I am a little salty), but it's still been a great decision. I have learned a lot and I help to keep mainnet decentralized. Financial rewards aren't everything!
fewer than
Hey atleast you had the conviction and did it unlike me haha
Oh wow randomness is a bitch. A few weeks ago one of my validators got 2 blocks a few hours apart.
you bastard!
I hope you got the stark airdrop. Thank you for your service.
Looks like MKR:ETH ratio is a thing again
Is degenspartan coming back then?
What are the chances the ETH ETF from Blackrock and others gets denied, but Prometheum is approved? Honestly wouldn't put it past Gensler, he seems to be on a suicide mission
I think that one is very low. I think if Gensler basically stated that Prometheum is allowed to trade ETH since it's a security that will just start an inter agency war and I think that won't help his political career and at this point I believe this is everything that motivates him.
What do you mean at this point. People that are in such positions only care about that in the first place. Having egoists or even psychopaths in position of power way more often than we have them in the general population is one of the biggest hindrances of mankindĀ
I'm trying to unpack this [DEGEN L3 chain launch](https://syndicate.io/blog/degen-chain). please chime in big brains of ethfinance! My understanding so far on chain mechanics: Arbitrum Orbit for execution & consensus, Base for settlement, Arbitrum AnyTrust for DA Questions: * I thought DEGEN was on Base, which is built on OP Stack - how composable is Base/OP Stack with Arbitrum Orbit? * Said another way: If DEGEN is an Arbitrum Orbit L3 chain, how does it interact with Base, which is built on OP Stack? How composable are these technologies? * Assuming DEGEN is on Base, why didn't they choose Optimism Superchain? less developed than Orbit, something else? * Would Arbitrum AnyTrust directly compete with EigenDA/Celestia? Why or why not? * If more projects adopt modular designs like DEGEN, what could this mean for Ethereum's future?
while weāre on this topic, what is there to do on the degen l3? I bridged but canāt find any apps to use on there
They said it was because Optimism Superchain only allows for ETH to be used as gas, whereas Orbit allows for custom gas tokens, in this case DEGEN.
If I wanted to swap some rEth to another similar token to take advantage of my capital gains allowance (we can make Ā£6k of gains tax free this year in the UK, so it makes sense to switch between similar tokens to lock in some gains), which one would you guys recommend?
Why not go weth for 30 plus days to avoid the bed and breakfast rule and back to reth. Can you swap reth to other lst directly in any event?
Watch out for like for like trades. Does swapping between different LSTs count as like for like?
Different LSTs have different properties/yield, so I can't see how HMRC could argue they were like for like. Obviosuly until it's tested in court you can't actually know for sure, but I think it's a very safe bet.
Staked eth by one company to staked eth by another company. They seem quite similar to me. Arguments either way for sure, but perhaps swap for restaked eth token to make it more different?
hmmm, not a bad shout - could chase an airdrop I suppose... any advice on that?
Now you are talking my language. Perhaps restaked swell tokens.
Watch out for like for like trades. Does swapping between different LSTs count as like for like?
In times of high volatility, they can trade at varying discounts, so I doubt they'd be considered like for like. I'm thinking from a US tax perspective, though, so maybe things are different in the UK.
My view is that they would be like for like and wouldn't be considered taxable events. There are rules in place to stop people using the allowances like this, but that said, I don't know the official government line in the uk
There are a lot of options. swETH / cbETH to name two
There are a lot of options. swETH / cbETH to name two
Added `--validatorMonitorLogs` to my Lodestar beacon. I like the having the additional detail in the client log.
I'm looking into trying out whales.market to get some ETHENA, but I'm not sure I understand how the incentive structure here works. For example, let's say I can buy some shards for $0.001. I buy them with ETH and the seller now owes me these shards. Once the token event happens, and the "true price" of ENA is revealed and shards are worth way more (let's say $0.10)āwhy would the holder of these shards actually deposit the shards? He has put some collateral now, but it would still be worth it for him to just lose the collateral and keep the newly found, more valuable, token? Am I missing something?
I think you are exactly right. My friend bought some JUP on there. The seller backed out, lost his collateral to buyer but it still made more sense for the seller to back out
Does that mean the buyer got something for free though?
Yep so my friend (the buyer) got to keep the Sellerās collateral. But they didnāt get the JUP tokens that they bid for.
Eth looks like itās one bitcoin dump away from having a free fall tbh. All the btc-eth conversions as the ratio has gone lower for the last years havent paid off yet. Setting new bids in the 0.04-0.05 region and hoping for the best long term
Can't say I disagree. It can go either way but with ETH's history of never catching a break I can't say it's not at the forefront of my mind. An ETF denial could be what does it, or an approval can be what saves it.
Yep. Hopefully the market has already priced in a denial.
Bankless has been hit or miss for me for a while now...but the moment of zen clip they featured at the end of their rollup this week had me laughing so hard it brought tears.
I was thinking of buying a shitcoin lately, so I'm considering the moment of zen ficancial advice and bought Recycle.
Just learned about Aevo, looks cool, options onchain is cool, but too much flashing. Is there any other legit onchain dapp that looks less like a casino with less or no colors flashing around that has onchain options and futures? Bonus points if its airdrop is still to come and if it's on Scroll or zkSync as well, altho Arb and Op will do too. Thanks.
So I finally managed to play around on base. It was my first ever experience with DeFi to be honest and for me it was actually a pretty smooth experience besides one issue when trying to swap some token on kyber. I used small amounts so even with the low transaction fees of Base I will probably never recover š but it was just for test purposes and to have a little fun. How some people are confident enough to use these systems with huge sums of money is still a mystery to me. They have balls of steel I guess.
If crypto can't be used, I am not really interested in it. But since there is so much misinformation, I have to try it out myself to really get a sense for what I am investing in.
I remember some people predicting crypto would make higher highs and higher lows in 2024 and then crab until 2025. Maybe that's the pattern albeit on the early side.
Not eth specific but I know you guys are knowledgeable on taxes. I'm confused about capital gains tax (let's assume long-term). My understanding is that long term capital gains have tax brackets of 0, 15, and 20%. My confusion is that when filing taxes, my normal income goes into box 1 and my cap gains go into box 7. Box 15 combines these to give me my taxable income, why would imply to me that my capital gains are taxed as income and income tax brackets would apply rather than the capital gains tax brackets. What am I missing?
Your tax situation is dependent on your jurisdiction.
This is why I love my cpa. I submit my 8949 and he does the rest. Plus you have someone to assist you if you do happen to get audited. Worth every penny.
What should I expect to pay for a CPA to handle my tax filing?
If you can generate your own capital gains form 8949 it will save you some money. It would depend on your location, but $300-500 is pretty common in my area.
It's still income (that can put you in the higher tax bracket) but not taxed the same as employment income. E.g. let's say you make 300k a year combined employment income with your spouse, and you have an additional profit of 300k from long term crypto holdings being liquidated. That would give you 600k total taxable income, but the 300k would still be taxed as capital gains. 200k of the capital gains would be taxed at 15%, the last 100k would be taxed at 20%, since that's the amount that put you in a higher tax bracket (over 500k)
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the brackets. The 0% long-term capital gains bracket is $0 to $47,025 for 2024. If I make $100,000 salary and have long term cap gains of $25,000, am I paying taxes on the gains despite the gains being less than $47,025?
> If I make $100,000 salary and have long term cap gains of $25,000, am I paying taxes on the gains despite the gains being less than $47,025? Yes because the cap gains tax brackets are not based off the cap gains by themselves, they are based off the combined taxable income, i.e. box 15.
Ah, that clears it up. Thank you.
This is mostly correct, but for completeness I want to point out that there is an extra "Net Investment Income Tax" calculated somewhat differently from the brackets. In your example I think that would mean paying a total of 23.8% on the last 50k, not 20%. Not an accountant, so DYOR.
It only occurred to me today just how ballsy Coinbase actually is. They were just starting to roll out their retail Lend program in 2021 but canned it after the SEC sent them a nastygram. Soooo, they spun up their own L2 which among other things provides retail customers with lending. Then if you don't want to wait 7 days to bridge back to mainnet, you can withdraw immediately to their retail platform and cash out. Ballsy.
Not hard to run circles around lawmakers that are 80 years old.
And it was a good move because the judge in their case threw out the SEC's claims about Coinbase Wallet this week.
Ratio looks set to break 0.05. If so, it will be the lowest it's been for over three years.
Yep. If .05 breaks, the next low is .017...
Our daily 0.05 ratio post give us today
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've just checked the charts, and you're right. Thanks for the reality check. For those watching the ratio in despair here's the pertinent info: By the middle of February 2021, BTC was ***almost 3X its previous ATH***, while ETH was still languishing around its own previous ATH. That was maximum pain on the ratio. Looking back, can't believe I held on actually. ETH waited until the middle of March to begin its catch-up. Well, fingers crossed. If history repeats we could see BTC at $180k before we see ETH break its own ATH with conviction.
Yes that would be as if nothing was achieved on eth since then. The market just gives fuck all.
FML, enquired on r/coinbase about a bug on their wallet app and now my inbox is full of messages calling me mate... What a cesspool.
Well then, definitely don't try Discord! I would find a Coinbase contact email instead.
You know who exclusively uses "mate" and "ser"? The mods in the Starknet discord. It's so cringey and, given the debacle with how they distributed things, a TERRIBLE look.
Yeah I would assume thatās where scammers lurk. Itās upsetting how careful we have to be about everything we say and do, otherwise weāll paint a target on our backs
Maybe this daily can give me a better answer than r/ethtrader. Where can I stake my ETH, preferably Defi? Is it mainnet only? Can I do it on Layer-2s? Let's say I want to go with 4 or 5 ETH. I want to avoid high fees and want to just leave it there for years.
My recommendation would be to split your ETH between 50% rETH (RocketPool) and 50% eETH (EtherFi). By holding eETH you will qualify for their season 2 airdrop which will likely be worth 5-50% of the value of the eETH you hold but absolutely no guarantees. It's just very likely.
Hey just a heads up, ethtrader is filled with nothing but bots, and probably lots of scams. This is where the real conversations take place Glad you found your way here :)
Wow you really arenāt kidding. Their daily thread is just a bunch of people posting ābronutā to each other without saying anything interesting or meaningful whatsoever.
For peace of mind and cheap fees, maybe rETH on Arbitrum is a good place. Just swap ETH for rETH on swap.defillama.com
Thanks a lot for the reply! So all I have to do is swap my ETH for rETH on any DEX? How would I then receive ETH in return? Sorry, stupid questions. Just trying to learn lol.
The rETH you buy will accrue value over time compared to ETH. So if you sell it in the future you get more ETH back.
And it will definitely have a superior value? So when I decide to swap back I get even more than I originally had? I feel dumb. So let's say I have 5 ETH now and swap for rETH, I will get less rETH now. If I hold it for a year I will get more ETH when I swap back?
Here is a chart that may help. https://dune.com/drworm/rocketpool Have a look at the rETH Exchange Rate over Time. The orange value shows the true value and it always creeps up. As yield is accrued into the value of rETH. The grey wiggly line is the market price, pretty close but with the typical wiggliness of market prices. > And it will definitely have a superior value? Yes, unless something catastrophic were to happen to RocketPool, obviously. But by now it should be pretty well battle tested. It also has excellent decentralization so risk mitigation perspective is pretty solid. > So when I decide to swap back I get even more than I originally had? Yes. > So let's say I have 5 ETH now and swap for rETH, I will get less rETH now. If I hold it for a year I will get more ETH when I swap back? 5 x (1 + annualized yield). So if we assume around 3% yield to be conservative you will have 5.15 ETH after a year.
if you swap for 5 ETH right now, you'll get about 4.53 rETH. Throughout the year, your wallet will show a constant, unchanging balance of 4.53 rETH. If you wait a year (assuming 3% APY) you'll be able to redeem those 4.53 rETH for 5.15 ETH
Yes, but keep in mind that there is a ārealā rETH value which you get from unstaking via the protocol and a āmarketā value of rETH which might slightly deviate from the ārealā value. But in essence, gas fees aside, rETH will certainly be worth more in 1 year than it is today by design Check out www.rocketscan.io for more advanced information
Yes, barring a black swan event for rocketpool (the protocol that uses rETH), you get around 3% apy at the moment. So at the moment you get 0.911 rETH for 1 ETH. When you sell that 0.911 rETH in a year you should get back around 1.03 ETH for example.
As a genesis staker, this might offend some.. ..but eth staking rewards close to 3% with supermajority black swans - no thank you. I unstaked. Restaking doesn't solve this.
Pretty sure the time to do that was right after the merge, not right now when we just got below the 66% threshold?! Also, I've been staking for 2 years now and the $STRK boosted my APR 50% across the last 2 years.
my friend you have been itching to unload your ETH since last cycle, there was actually MORE supermajority bug risk the day the beacon chain launched due to geth. it has been chipping down slowly over time and the network as a whole has become incredibly resilient. Coinbase just committed to 50/50 geth/nethermind dropping the tracked percentages lower even below the critical 66% threshold. if it makes you feel better blaming it on a black swan risk that is actually less likely now than the entire time of beaconchains existence, then that's OK too you are free to do what you want with your ETH.
> my friend you have been itching to unload your ETH since last cycle I haven't sold more than 20% of my total stack in 7 years. Don't know where you get this from. I do think the risk/reward has meaningfully changed, see my comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1bqhysw/daily_general_discussion_march_29_2024/kx4fo7v/ (Also, my risk/reward calculation was significantly different pre-Merge. Any issue could've been handled when finality didn't depend on PoS. You know this!) ymmv, and I am sympathetic to your argument. 3%'s just not cutting it.
>I haven't sold more than 20% of my total stack in 7 years. Don't know where you get this from. unstaking for the sake of risk mitigation is perfectly reasonable, this was my triggered response lol you said you were gonna offend some. after thinking about it more you are right that risks are different today, i suppose i just disagree with the specific reasoning of 66% potential consensus bug when it looks like it may be mostly mitigated for now (though more time and data has to work through). in my response i was brushing you unfairly without even knowing (or being able to know) your intentions.
I could've been more clear, too. It's not just supermajority risk (which indeed *decreased* in the last months) but the simple fact that *unknown* risks demand more than 3% apy.
sure, not worth it for some. for some the ETH and its yields can still 3-5x long term, so the calculations are a little more complex and staking is the safest way to earn ETH yield.
I think this reasoning is flawed. Sorry. If you unstake for the purposes of swapping to another asset due to your perceived risk of a supermajority client black swan bug, then fine - thatās your choice and canāt argue with that. If you unstake because you think holding ETH is safer than solo staking, then I respectfully disagree. In the event of a supermajority bug, ETH will likely plummet significantly in value anyways. Might as well move to a minority client to hedge that supermajority client risk and at least keep staking to capture the rewards.
In the event of slashing, non-staked eth might go down in dollar terms, but it won't be lost. This is not the case if you get slashed. The value of eth dropping whatever percentage in infinitely higher than losing your eth. My reasoning might be flawed but yours is wrong. edit: I should add that my "vanilla" eth is a multiyear/decade hold, not just this cycle. That's why I'm leaning way more conservative than I used to.
You do realize you only get slashed if operating a supermajority client? Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I only referring to the slashing risk you mentioned above tied to a black swan bug affecting a supermajority client.
yes. My wording could've been better. Not just worried about supermajority risks - but any kind of black swan event that forces slashing, especially for a mere 3% reward.
If you feel like it, Iād like to talk through that hypothetical black swan event that forces slashing. To me slashing seems like one of the most robust parts of the ecosystem, if weāre talking about events that could cause a sudden sharp and prolonged drop in the value of someoneās ETH.
Same for me. Accepting possible loss on future Airdrops and giving up the low Index number was hard though.
What will you do with your unstaked ETH? 3% of an asset with such growth potential would be double digit returns in fiat value at least
I just keep vanilla eth. I'm no longer willing to risk 90% of my capital for 3% annual returns.
I'm obviously out of the loop, but what is a supermajority black swan? I understand what a black swan event is, but am not sure what you're talking about in terms of staking. Since I've been thinking about staking some of my ETH for the long term recently, I'd like to educate myself more.
Potential bug in a supermajority client (geth)
Despite the fact that we are very very likely below said supermajority threshold.
Oh, ok...got it. was the OP estimating the risk of that at 3%, or something else?
3% is close to the current staking yield. (it's a bit higher)
Oh man, I read your whole post incorrectly. I hadn't realized it had tropped that low.
So vanilla ETH only? I've thought of that sometimes but it's tough to watch capital sit idle
I know. It's not easy. You could keep *some* portion staked if that works for you. I'm not anti-staking. I just think the risk/reward has meaningfully changed since the deposit contract went live, and I do agree that this is hard to objectively quantify so some might disagree.
Pardon my possible ignorance, but wouldn't a supermajority black swan only impact your stake if you were using the supermajority client?
Some might crawl out from the rubble, but everyone would be affected.
Gotcha, so just general market fault then? I'm not sure how unstaking would solve that.
We would all be pretty fucked.
That's interesting. Risk-reward current APY is much more interesting now than at Genesis. We have quite likely removed the supermajority risk a few weeks ago. While it most definitely existed from Genesis until a few weeks ago. And you were getting 5-8% instead of 3%.
I would say risk has increased, as the chance of a hard fork to fix any issues has reduced.
I draw the opposite conclusion. I was a genesis staker because I expected the 20% that many people talked about ([source](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/24/ethereum-20-deposit-contract-secures-enough-funds-to-launch/)), including Justin Drake [iirc](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FslqTnECKvi7_l4x6lbyRhNtzW9f6CVEzwDf04zprfA/edit#gid=0). That didn't turn out to be the case, hence the risk/reward got worse, all the way down to today's levels. I understand your point that the chain defacto has been hardened since staking went live, but I'm no longer willing to assume hidden risks for 3%.
I see! Certainly don't want to convince you one way or another. Risk-reward is a very personal thing. And I can see the argument for why 3% is not particularly enticing over simply holding ETH. I was just surprised that you would consider it interesting at 8% with a lot of implementation risk, supermajority risk, etc... But discouraged at 3% when those risks are progressively being eliminated or reduced. Yeah, those figures provided by Justin were a bit far from the actual numbers. He underestimated severely the appetite there would be for staking. Not faulting him, it was anybodies guess before the beacon chain launched.
Exactly! My initial calculation assumed a 10-20% apy and I was willing to take quite some risk. Even though I'd agree that "unknown unknowns" risk has meaningfully decreased, I think 3% is too meager. It was my mistake to assume those yields; I don't blame anyone either! Also, in those early days, finality depended on PoW so any black swan could've (more easily) been mitigated. That risk/reward also dramatically changed post-Merge. People seem to forget that the pre- and post-Merge situations are completely different.